None of what Jefferson envisioned and everything Hamilton envisioned?

[nonlnear]

Jefferson was a borderline hypocrite. A walking contradiction is a more amenable term. I love the guy, but yeah, he definitely did not practice what he preached, what with the slave owning and Louisiana Purchase. The man himself was deep in debt in his later years. This book is a good read on the dichotomy of TJ.

But that does nothing to discredit the merit of his ideas - at least when evaluated on their own merits. Or is it okay to engage in character assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. as a way of avoiding an honest engagement of his ideas too?

In case it's not perfectly clear, I am not advocating the position that MLK's fraudulent doctorate, his philandering, or his opportunism in party flip-flopping in any way detract from his legacy as a catalyst of great positive change in this country. Quite the opposite. MLK is the perfect example of why Jefferson's "do as I say, not as I do" life is a poor excuse for dismissing his ideas on their face. Grapple with them directly and reject them if you will, but don't do so out of contempt for the man himself.

 

[sandorski]

But that does nothing to discredit the merit of his ideas - at least when evaluated on their own merits. Or is it okay to engage in character assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. as a way of avoiding an honest engagement of his ideas too?

In case it's not perfectly clear, I am not advocating the position that MLK's fraudulent doctorate, his philandering, or his opportunism in party flip-flopping in any way detract from his legacy as a catalyst of great positive change in this country. Quite the opposite. MLK is the perfect example of why Jefferson's "do as I say, not as I do" life is a poor excuse for dismissing his ideas on their face. Grapple with them directly and reject them if you will, but don't do so out of contempt for the man himself.

I think he might have been just pointing out that he was, like all of us, Human. Historical figures are often viewed with Godlike awe. They may have had some great Ideas, but what they said is not written in stone and should be adhered to without question just because they had some good Ideas.

 

[werepossum]

But that does nothing to discredit the merit of his ideas - at least when evaluated on their own merits. Or is it okay to engage in character assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. as a way of avoiding an honest engagement of his ideas too?

In case it's not perfectly clear, I am not advocating the position that MLK's fraudulent doctorate, his philandering, or his opportunism in party flip-flopping in any way detract from his legacy as a catalyst of great positive change in this country. Quite the opposite. MLK is the perfect example of why Jefferson's "do as I say, not as I do" life is a poor excuse for dismissing his ideas on their face. Grapple with them directly and reject them if you will, but don't do so out of contempt for the man himself.

Or as Jim Steinman said (via Meatloaf): "Every hero was once - every villain was once - just a boy with a bad attitude."

I have no problem with amending the Constitution where we all agree it has become outdated. I have a great problem with this concept of a "Living Constitution" that means anything they want it to mean - the "General Welfare" clause being an excellent example. This essentially means we have no Constitution - and therefore no rights except those that the people in power choose to allow us.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Is it fair to say that the U.S. went so far Hamiltonian that the U.S. is essentially nothing Jefferson would be satisfied with?

I don't know that much about Hamilton, but wouldn't Hamilton have advocated trade protectionism? Wouldn't Hamilton have been an opponent of foreign outsourcing, foreign work visas, and mass immigration like what we have today?

If so, then it seems like it's hard to say that the U.S. has gone "Hamiltonian" when it's merging its economy and well-being with that of the third world.

 

[LegendKiller]

Or as Jim Steinman said (via Meatloaf): "Every hero was once - every villain was once - just a boy with a bad attitude."

I have no problem with amending the Constitution where we all agree it has become outdated. I have a great problem with this concept of a "Living Constitution" that means anything they want it to mean - the "General Welfare" clause being an excellent example. This essentially means we have no Constitution - and therefore no rights except those that the people in power choose to allow us.

The Constitution was never meant to outline everything this country can/should be. It was meant to provide the foundation for a country for self-rule. That self-rule was not cemented and could never change. All of the framers realized that they couldn't possibly conceive of everything a society should be, they knew that was the downfall of prior societies. Furthermore, they themselves were incorrect in many areas (women and slaves).

To think that society cannot progress and cannot incorporate new ideas is silly. Furthermore, to think that you are less "free" merely because the government provides social services, at the will of the people, is likewise a silly concept.

The great part of our government is the fact that the Constitution does provide a groundwork for how to deal with differing opinions, through all 3 branches of the government. If the people really do disagree with Congress, they can change Congress. It is that simple.

However, to say that the Constitution does not cover the facets of nationalized healthcare is to ignore the fact that the Constitution provides for new facets explicitly through self-rule.

 

[JTsyo]

If you popped them here from the1700s they might be in shock but if you allowed them to follow US history to see how we got this point from their roots, I think they would be quite pleased. For all the ills of our nation, there is much more good in it. It seems these days you get more miles out of bad news on TV so that's what we're bombarded with. A decade or two from now, looking back we'll realize that hings weren't as bad as we thought.
Their biggest issue might be how detached the population is from politics and how concentrated political power is within the US. Into the 1800s, politics were like pro-sports for Americans. It is now that people are more interested in American Idol results than government policy.

Oh to add to it, I think Jefferson's path would have been a poor path for the US to follow. I doubt we would have become the economic powerhouse we are today if we had stuck to an agrarian society.

 

[LegendKiller]

If you popped them here from the1700s they might be in shock but if you allowed them to follow US history to see how we got this point from their roots, I think they would be quite pleased. For all the ills of our nation, there is much more good in it. It seems these days you get more miles out of bad news on TV so that's what we're bombarded with. A decade or two from now, looking back we'll realize that hings weren't as bad as we thought.
Their biggest issue might be how detached the population is from politics and how concentrated political power is within the US. Into the 1800s, politics were like pro-sports for Americans. It is now that people are more interested in American Idol results than government policy.

Oh to add to it, I think Jefferson's path would have been a poor path for the US to follow. I doubt we would have become the economic powerhouse we are today if we had stuck to an agrarian society.

Agree 100%. I think they would be pleased to see that the country has been able to advance, as not only a beacon of liberty, but also one of education, reason, and progress in society.

I find it amusing that the tea baggers think the tea party was over taxation. It wasn't. It was over taxation WITHOUT representation.

They forget that being free doesn't mean there is no government.

Also amusing that everybody thinks the FF knew 100% about the future when they drafted the Constitution. Idiots. I know many would love to see this country revert back to the 18th century, but I don't.

 

[Zorkorist]

There's very little arguement for small government, low taxes, freedom to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in the constitution.

The founders were all politicians, and founded a Government that would be successful.

THAT was there job.

That they imagined checks and balances, States rights, etc., is good.

But let there be no doubt, they wanted to Govern you.

-John

 

[werepossum]

There's very little arguement for small government, low taxes, freedom to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in the constitution.

The founders were all politicians, and founded a Government that would be successful.

THAT was there job.

That they imagined checks and balances, States rights, etc., is good.

But let there be no doubt, they wanted to Govern you.

-John

I dunno, the original federation of states was all state rights, no federal power. Only after that failed and the states squabbled did they consider even the rudimentary federal government they then established, and even then they carefully limited the power of the federal government. There was considerable political support for naming Washington our king, after all. And they did make a very forward-looking document - for instance, "all men" are created equal rather than "all us property-owning white guys" which was actually the case at the time.

 

[Zorkorist]

Every time I have looked back to the Constitution to support a conservative point, like small government, or limits in taxation, I have been dissapointed.

They did make a very forward looking document, and have been exceptional Governors.

But that is what they are... Obamas... not some mystical thing... people that wanted to Govern you, and the framework they established has worked (more or less) for 250 years.

-John

 

[LegendKiller]

Every time I have looked back to the Constitution to support a conservative point, like small government, or limits in taxation, I have been dissapointed.

They did make a very forward looking document, and have been exceptional Governors.

But that is what they are... Obamas... not some mystical thing... people that wanted to Govern you, and the framework they established has worked (more or less) for 250 years.

-John

Who is they? You mean the people wanted to govern the people?

If that is your point, yes, they did want to govern "you", that's because "you" govern "you" in this system.

All people need to be governed to some extent, it is inevitable that leaders develop and those leaders take power. It is up to you whether you want them to aggregate power unto the rulers or aggregate them unto the ruled.

Which system is better?

 

[Zorkorist]

In this system, we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.

I thank the Founding Fathers for them, but point out that it is not stopping the State and Federal Government from growing beyond control.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Who is they? You mean the people wanted to govern the people?

If that is your point, yes, they did want to govern "you", that's because "you" govern "you" in this system.

All people need to be governed to some extent, it is inevitable that leaders develop and those leaders take power. It is up to you whether you want them to aggregate power unto the rulers or aggregate them unto the ruled.

Which system is better?

I am an advocate of small government.

-John

 

[LegendKiller]

I am an advocate of small government.

-John

What the fuck is small government? Is that something that YOU tell the people to take because you want it? Or is it what the people want, provided through representation?

 

[Zorkorist]

Neither.

I know the concept may be hard for you to swallow, but imagine if you stubbed your toe and your sister refused to kiss it.

Mom, will not make her kiss it.

That's small Government.

-John

 

[LegendKiller]

Neither.

I know the concept may be hard for you to swallow, but imagine if you stubbed your toe and your sister refused to kiss it.

Mom, will not make her kiss it.

-John

I know it's a hard concept for you to swallow, but when it comes down to it, the Constitution was never meant to adhere to a single concept outlining ALL facets of this country. It was meant to provide a foundation for self-rule.

Imagine if you built a house, but it was 100% make out of foundation. It didn't have a roof, nor windows, nor doors. It was merely a box in which you were deposited into but could never escape, nor change, nor grow into, or out of.

That is the government you want and the FF at least had a shit-ton more imagination than you have. Thank god.

 

[Zorkorist]

In this system, we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.

I thank the Founding Fathers for them, but point out that it is not stopping the State and Federal Government from growing beyond control.

-John

-John

 

[werepossum]

Neither.

I know the concept may be hard for you to swallow, but imagine if you stubbed your toe and your sister refused to kiss it.

Mom, will not make her kiss it.

That's small Government.

-John

That's bloody brilliant, mate.

I know it's a hard concept for you to swallow, but when it comes down to it, the Constitution was never meant to adhere to a single concept outlining ALL facets of this country. It was meant to provide a foundation for self-rule.

Imagine if you built a house, but it was 100% make out of foundation. It didn't have a roof, nor windows, nor doors. It was merely a box in which you were deposited into but could never escape, nor change, nor grow into, or out of.

That is the government you want and the FF at least had a shit-ton more imagination than you have. Thank god.

That's bloody stupid, mate. The Founding Fathers gave us a small but perfectly functional house, with a blueprint to add on if we so desired. Today's politicians have embraced the concept of a "Living House Plan", whereby we can take over our neighbor's house and claim that today's definition of the house plan includes his house too - spread the wealth, you know. Big difference.